Terence Lee >> TOC Review
Think conservative, and the angry parent comes to mind. Domineering and overprotective, she grumbles over every trespass of her sensitivity. She also writes frequently to the press, railing against rising sexual promiscuity with vitriol and mock outrage.
(Right, Photo Courtesy of Free Digital Photos)
Slowly, she sees her castle crumble, her world invaded by unsavoury Western influence.It is in this besieged state that she makes the loudest noise. Is it a cry of victory or the final death throe? Is Singapore falling into a repository of everything grotesque and evil?
You cannot really blame her for thinking this way; she is protective of her children, like every parent would.
This is where 58-year-old Kelvind Kao comes to mind. In a recent Straits Times article, the father of a 13-year-old daughter told the reporter that he wants the Internet restricted and teenagers banned from using phones with internet access, otherwise, they will watch ‘Tammy Nyp’, he says.
But is he taking it too far? Certainly, concerns coming from conservative groups are valid. Children need to be protected from unsavoury content that might disrupt their development. The effects of sexual content on television are known to shape the values of teenagers in ways that will make their parents gasp. Sex among minors and teenagers is on the rise, and part of the blame has to go to the media and the Internet.
To dismiss their concerns outright would be insensitive, surely, but overt censorship is not the right way to address the problem either. Singapore is gradually liberalising but much censorship still remains and can be overbearing for many. For instance, speeches by Sean Penn and Lady Gaga at the Academy Awards and the MTV Video Music Awards ceremonies respectively expressed support for the gay rights movement. However, both speeches were snipped from local television broadcast of the event.
The Media Development Authority (MDA) Programme Code states: “ content which sympathises with, promotes or normalises the homosexual lifestyle will be banned” (a more detailed discussion of this is available at Yawning Bread). Presumably, the logic is that television remains the primary mode of media consumption for viewers and therefore minors and teenagers need to be protected from Primetime exposure.
The Flip Side
Arguably, this perspective may hold true because television is passive and minors can be quite easily exposed to, and influenced by, the content. But would they even be mature enough to understand, let alone watch the award ceremonies and appreciate the context in which the speeches were made? Also, such dismal censorship measures will utterly fail in the face of the Internet.
Why watch a boring speech at the Academy Awards when gay porn can be viewed off the World Wide Web – easily accessible, highly explicit, and totally free? And while the media may have a powerful effect on individuals, censoring a few rare scenes of homosexual portrayal gives the media too much credit – a 30-second speech will not turn a teenager into a sex fiend overnight.
Even the status of local television as a focal point for families to gather seems to be under threat as savvy youths can simply rip the latest American serials off the internet and YouTube. Thus, it seems the only purpose for such censorship is symbolic and may even have lost its purpose altogether and become a relic of sorts – an ornament in the park that is well-worn by wind and rain and relegated to the backdrop.
Worse, it becomes a sign of oppression and paternalism, firstly displaying a lack of tolerance towards minority groups and secondly, exhibiting a tendency to treat adults like kids. This overwhelming proclivity to censor is not lost on us Singaporeans – it has happened time and time again and is likely to happen in the future.
And what of those who are sexually liberal and see no issue with enjoying such content? What rights do conservative groups have to impose their values on those who clearly do not agree with them? There is the question of whether these conservative voices really constitute a ‘silent majority’ and perhaps they do – a survey done by researchers at the Wee Kim Wee School found that 7 in 10 Singaporeans frown on homosexuality (original article reproduced at Mr Wang Says So with commentary).
However, it is less important who constitutes the majority in Singapore than whether censorship will remain an effective measure in the face of globalisation and the liberalism it brings. Certainly, the government and the media have a part to play in maintaining a basic sense of moral decency in television programmes but regulation is not the same as overt censorship. Instituting ratings is not the same as snipping away segments from a film; it is like defacing a work of art. There is no use maintaining a facade of ‘Asianness’ when the Internet with its democratising influence is here to stay.
The Need for Sensibility
Minors of course deserve to be protected from harmful influences and internet filters serve a useful purpose for families that need them. But there will come a point of time when the child grows up to be responsible for his or her own self. What then? Surely the parent cannot continue to mollycoddle the child forever?
Conservative groups with a desire to impart their moral values should do it at home, in schools, and yes, even in angry letters to the media. Parents should work at imparting sound moral values to their children, teaching them to reject perceived negative influences on their own. There is also certainly no harm in producing wholesome and safe media content for the masses either.
Religious organisations play a crucial role in educating their flock to practice self-restraint when encountered by external temptation. Some of what they preach certainly has value even in a modern society so long as they are not overbearing and imposing. Singaporeans should be taught to self-regulate and separate good from harm instead of relying on the government to do it for them. Finally, there is no doubt on the danger of a sense of moral duty quickly degenerating into plain selfishness when conservative groups impose their values on others by way of the law.
And in the words of Ris Low, the impetus for such selfish groups shouts: “It’s about me!”
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The internet is ubiquitious.
NO one can stop the flow of information.
So will the State please stop treating us as 6 year old or idiots.
As both a liberal and a parent, I can understand both points of views when it comes to censorship.
As a liberal, I believe that everyone should have access to everything, including porn. But this is said in the context of a mature, thinking adult. Once a person turns 18 or whatever age we deem a person is mature and an adult, he or she should be free to access what he or she needs and come to a conclusion based on his or her own upbringing.
As a parent, I only have at most 18 years to educate and bring up my children. The task is not easy, for those who have had children before. Bringing up children involves not only the physical and physiological aspects but also mental, emotional and spiritual. The task is made more difficult with different, sometimes contradicting views from the mass media (which includes internet). Mass media is not just television. It includes videos, movies, radio, books, magazines, posters, the internet and host of information that keeps bombarding the senses. A parent cannot screen all of them off. Hence the need for the state to help.
How to achieve a balance between the needs of a liberal and the needs of a parent is something that needs to be explore. We cannot simply say this is the need of conservative versus liberal. I am pretty sure a conservative adult can easily tune off from all those liberal information but it is difficult for a parent to get his children not see or absorb all those messages.
One possible solution is time and space zoning. For example, in time-sensitive media like TV and radio, specific time can be dedicated to more liberal and risque content (a.k.a. adult content). In other countries, this is usually after a certain time (e.g. between midnight to 6a.m., a graveyard hour in the first place).
For space zoning, certain adult content can be restricted in certain areas. Once these areas are made known, it is up to the individuals to decide if they want to risk the content or not. For example, a family friendly zone will not have those posters that are deemed adult while an adult zone can have no limits to those posters.
Books, magazines, newspapers will be hard to regulate, but unlike TV, radio and posters, one cannot accidentally be exposed to such things. Adult content publications can have a specific packaging and similar to cigarettes, cannot be sold to minor, for example.
As for the internet, parents must be provided with the tools to help them screen off undesirables. Other than that, it should be freely available.
To me, the key to achieving the goal of satisfying both liberal and parents is to allow for all contents but at the same time, give parents as much tools as possible and educate parents how to regulate the tools.
The government has a record of all births in Singapore. So it is not difficult for them to send periodic parenting tools in the form of information to all parents to help them control their children’s information access.
Only then can we achieve happiness for all people, not a specific camp. And definitely not a you-vs-me mentality when it comes to information access.
The problem of course lies with the fact that people with differing views will always think they are right – conservative or liberal. The child on the other hand is innocent – he/she lacks the experience to differentiate right from wrong.
To say that an adult is imbued naturally with a sense of moral right and wrong is to be totally naive as one can see from different societies, religions and cultures that morality can vary widely.
The solution is simple. Parents themselves have to educate their children on morality and not blame the media or external influences if the child turns out otherwise once reaching adulthood. The responsibility of imbuming an innocent child with his/her moral structure comes from the parents. Even schools cannot be held responsible for moral issues. The conservatives can shout and write and vote as passionately as they want to – even be violent about it – but at the end of the day, if a child grows up without possessing the moral structures of the parents, who else can the parents blame but themselves?
The basic issue remains, the public media such as tv/cable tv/newspapers are passive mediums in which no interaction is given or desired hence all responsible parental parties would seek maximum conservatism.
The author is being irresponsible unless we have access to TIVO.
Further , they have no answered why does Singapore society needs to have such on such passive media. Considering they claim that it should not follow present patterns but they will only wish to follow the libertarian model and not the conservative model espoused in the West, so it is just as one sided and definitely not a neutral perspective.
.
As compared to internet, which requires searches and active partcipation, I would put that that requires effort and frankly, a lot of whistling in the wind.
Har? Excuse me for sounding stupid here, but why does this vision sound like it’s for a whole different country (or “city, not a country”)? Because it seems predicated on an assumption that policy-makers have or aspire to a reasonable and neutral stance. Accompanied by all the noble objectives of entrusting citizens to formulate and develop their own sets of moral values/ sense of judgement, as if these things develop within a vacuum where mainstream media messaging and control of information wholly cannot influence.
I don’t know… Sounds like a whole different world to me… :(
4/11/09
Today, we are no longer in the Dark Ages where we only have one choice of media ie the main stream which is made up of newspapers, magazines, TV and radio which are all controlled directly or indirectly by the government of the day and at the same time, alternative views are heavily censored or totally banned. Now, we have the Internet Age is is our alternative media and one can get the information by having a PDA, HP, computer-desk top, notebook or netbook or just walking into a cyber cafe and pay for an hour and gets all the information and mind you, whether one is in Singapore, Malaysia, Hongkong, China or USA, the information from this alternative media ie internet, is usually true (including so called rumours which at the end of day, confirm true).
Our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in one of his book as called the Internet Age a “Deep Space” of information where one just press the button and honestly not easy to censor and ban, and parents should not be afraid to alllow their kids to have total access as part of their growing up (our time, there was no Internet Atge, computers were so expansive and only the super rich can afford and this include handphones with only basic functions and no SMS, MMS, Video, etc like what we are having now).
We must use this Internet Age wisely and wirte without Fear or Favour regardless for the government of the day or for the opposition. Today, we cannot deny that we don’t need a strong, constructive and credible Opposition in our Parliament (stupid of a Young PAP member who wrote that we don’t need Opposition in Parliament and this is nonsense and madness> Regardless whether we are n Singapore, Malaysia or Thailand or Australia, and USA, we need a strong, credible and constructive Opposition especially a sizeable numbers in Parliament , for check and balance and prevent the ruling party to simply pass laws and amend the Constitution and we have seen this in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the best is India (the best democracy which they inherited from the British since their independce and they did not allow the government of the day, simply to amend their Constitution at theirwhimps and facies and it is time for us Ordinary Singaporeans to learn from these countries and come next General Election, vote in as many strong, constructive and credible Opposition MPs into the new Parliament and not half baked, quarter baked or no baked and Running Dogs of foreign NGOs. A strong, credible and consturctive opposition is here to stay and right now we have a very weak, fragile and directionlessopposition parties in Singapore who is still looking for soneone to lead them (currently there is none at all, perhaps a modern Lee Kuan Yew or Anwar Ibrahim or perhaps a combination of both and who must always put our Modern Singapore and her national interests above all things and this is what I would be looking for in this chap and equal or better than the PAP (ministers and mps who are not up to the expectation of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew).
Regards
Andrewv Chuah
Ordinary Singaporean
Andrew Chuah,
Why do we need a credible and constructive Parliament and not a new Government?
Such framing of words always put Opposition political parties in the shadow of PAP.
btan (#3),
You make excellent sense … in theory. What makes this issue such a problem is that the liberals do have a point about the inability to successfully censor. Even the non-electronic media blocks can be subverted if you know the correct person. A minor cannot buy “adult” material, but a minor can get a friendly adult to purchase that material for him or her.
The “special time” requirement for risque shows is useless when it comes to sleepovers. Even for non-risque shows, people are willing to stay up late. Don’t we know many students who will stay up to 2 o’clock in the morning to watch Man-U versus Arsenal?
In the end, the conservatives – and yes, the real conservatives – still have one question the liberals need to answer: why do we need all these “adult” stuff in the first place? Why should you treat yourself – and your older children – any different from your young children; aren’t the elder people supposed to set an example for the younger ones?
Sloo (#4),
A child’s main mode of learning is emulation, and not all emulation is conscious. Yes, at birth – or rather, at conception – the child is innocent, but that innocence begins to be lost the moment the child makes its first formal interaction with its parents (The initial spanking and crying does not count.)
And because children are subject to several influences, each of these influences have their own responsibilities to the child’s development, so yes they can be blamed, even if we are blaming the parents for their neglect of the child’s development.
Andrew Chuah (#7),
Not all censorship is political censorship!!
@9) Arix (@UK) on November 5th, 2009 7.06 am
There are two questions I will address to you.
Firstly, “why do we need all these “adult” stuff in the first place”.
Liberals do not see it as “needing” the adult stuff. Liberals see it as there should be no censorship in the first place when it comes down to adult stuff. By adult stuff, I do not only talk about porn. But other adult issues like gay rights, relationship, looking beautiful, relationships etc…
Secondly, “Why should you treat yourself – and your older children – any different from your young children”.
We treat minor (as defined by the law) different from adult precisely because the law treats them differently. There is a reason minor cannot sign a contract, get married, drink alcohol, smoke or do a myriad of things that adult can do. To say we have to “lead by example” is really being unrealistic. Do we lead by example by not getting married? Not sign contracts? Not voting? Not serving NS? After all, minor cannot do all these right?
As for minor access to adult magazines and books, like you said, all these are easily accessible in the net now. Books and magazines are not going to impact that much. I would treat these items similar to tobacco and alcohol products. You can’t sell to minor but a minor can get a friend to buy for them. But the law also says anyone who do so will be subjected to the punishment of the law. So the same thing should apply to adult materials. If it works with alcohol and tobacco, why not adult materials? And in my view, smoking and drinking is far more harmful than viewing at naked bodies.
As mentioned before, I do not see it as liberal versus conservative. The article quoted the concern of a parent. So it is more of liberal versus parents. And as both, I can safely say that as long as tools are given to parents without limiting the rights of liberals, that is fine. Conservatives who are adults and no kids really have no right to limit the freedom of others, since they have the freedom to avoid all the liberal materials.
*Arix
Therein lies the problem of who to blame. You can have children exposed to similar external ‘harmful’ influences and yet one child can grow to develop an entirely differently set of moral principles as the other. How does this come about? External influences happen all the time but it is the parent’s duty to communicate with the child on how these influences affect his moral growth. It is the parents that will have to put in that extra effort to ensure that their child end up beig the kind of moral person thay expect.
The reality now is a media that creates content for the most profit; if there is a demand for rique materials, they will create it within the acceptable boundries of the law. And if not within the law, the internet has provided a ready platform for ‘obscene’ materials eg. child pornography for paedophiles. How does one propose to prevent a child from experiencing this ‘reality’ that is changing everyday? Does one shield him/her from it or does one impose more and more restrictions and censorship on the countless media platforms that are forever changing? A good solution is to have a mix of measures but the truth is that the authorities themselves are barely grappling and keeping up with ‘reality’ as it evolves as a break neck speed
It all boils down to parental guidiance and supervision. Depend not on the authroties to do the work that essentially is the parent’s firsty duty – to rear a child.
I agree to a certain extend it is the parent’s responsibility to inculcate value to a child. But those who are parents with children will know that it is easier said than done. After all, it is only you and your spouse against the whole world of mass media. Everyday, if you walk along the bus stop, you will see posters plastered with the latest and greatest products that will guarantee you to be slim, beautiful, healthy, rich, famous and otherwise all the good things as long as you use the product.
You can tell your children until the cows come home that inner beauty is still the best but when they see all these messages from various sources, it will be hard for them to listen to you.
So while the parents has responsibilities to teach their kids, and they very well should, they also need help in the form of tools and information to help either to combat against the negative influence, which children have very little defenses against. At the same time, it should not restrict the freedom of liberal adults.
One good example is the American R-rated movie system. In the US, R-rate movie does not mean children cannot watch. Children can watch as long as accompanied by the parent. This simple tool placed the control of access on the hands of the parent and each parent can decide if they want to let their children watch such a movie or not.
Another example is the computer game rating systems. While we have rating system, this is not enforced. As such, minors can have access to ultra violent games which may be detrimental to their mental well being. If the law can enforce the rating system, such that only adults can buy all rating but minor can only buy those ratings meant for them, then it will be a help. Parents who are OK with their children playing ultra violent games can then buy for their kids if they choose to do so.
I feel this is a win-win situation for both liberals and parents.
5/11/09
Hi Oxford Dude-Good to hear from you. The Opposition in Singapore first needs someone to lead them and when we have this Chap-a mixture of Modern Lee Kuan Yew and Anwar Ibrahim, he needs to pick a strong, credible and constructive people and present them to the Ordinary Singaporeans like us plus their Manifestoes and convince us that they deserve our votes (not many will give them their votes at least 30% will continue to vote the PAP hence this round of General Election is not so easy to replace the PAP as the government of the day and we have seen similar trends ie Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Australia with excepton of Thailand with the help of the Army, the Democrats is now the government of the day. Inshort, this chap and his team, must be very good and outstand and earn all our votes come next round of General Election. I hope I have convinced you. An Alternative Government needs time to nurture and this is a very real world.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Knives can kill. Ban all knives !
The article author who is also the TOC admin’s fundie Christian views should be known by now, and so is their dogma on homosexuality.
Perhaps Terence should provide the answer, which he conveniently skipped, to the question he asked himself:
“What rights do conservative groups have to impose their values on those who clearly do not agree with them?”
Whether there is a majority against homosexuality in principle or homo porn in particular, should not be the issue – there is such a thing as TYRANNY/OPPRESSION of the majority. what is important is WHY the majority is against homosexuality is all its aspects and how does homosexuality affect them?
It is more hypocrisy and double standards when conservatives talk about MORALS/MORALITY.
16) Her we go again on
“The article author who is also the TOC admin’s fundie Christian views should be known by now, and so is their dogma on homosexuality.”
Can’t you read someone’s argument without being judgemental?
And furthermore, the author is agreeing we shld have less censorship (i.e. opening up more space and freedom), so ‘fundie’ of not, i think both of you are on the same side.
~
My question to the author is this- given that we have so much alternative media on the internet, censorship of the mainstream media becomes merely ‘symbolic’, then why should any of us be concern abt a “symbolic censorship”?
In real terms, when ST omits smth, we will always find out through some other means. Mediacorp censors awards speeches, we can find it on youtube. So in practical sense, does the ‘symbolic censorship’ really change anything?
If not, why should we bother (and the author writing this article)?
*btan
I do agree with your view – thats why i say the best solution would be a mix of parent supervision and tools recommended or devised by the authorities and placed in the hands of parents. To let the State nanny us in the name of preserving the good moral standards of society is a futile cause in the long run. As you correctly observed, we are constantly bombarded by the mass media every second of the day. Censorship works only to a very minimum extent in this day and age of the internet. What society needs to do is to educate parents to educate their young every step of the way. And i dun think it is a difficult task for parents if the child is their priority. If work, money, pleasure or any other issue is the parents’ priority then imagine what values the child will grow up with.
*Here we go again
As for the tyranny of the majority, there is also the tyranny of minority – in this case, the elite conservative voices. If u have been following the ST interviews and profiles on civil leaders and big time entrepreneurs etc you will have noticed that inevitably most of them would bring up religion in their interviews – how they are blessed with their careers and good fortune etc etc etc. The fact remains that the elite in Singapore are mainly conservative and christian and they dictate to a large extent many policies that determine the nature of our moral society. Singapore is not a case of the tyranny of the silent majority – rather it is the TYRANNY OF THE ELITE minority -the ones with wealth, resources and power behind them. And they will always think they are in the right and they behave the proof for this – successful powerful and very very moralistic.
Clearly ‘Her we go again’ doesn’t understand the intent of the author or his leanings.
RW, that is why a ban becomes ‘symbolic’, it doesn’t serve any useful purpose except to point out the so-called prevailing moral values of the society.
btan (#11),
1) “being beautiful” is considered “adult” to you?
Anyway, the liberals’ position is that there should be no censorship whatsoever. However, dogmatic insistence on that goal blocks out the liberals’ understanding of why censorship is suggested for certain materials. Admittedly, censorship is a knee-jerk reaction, but it is a still a reaction to something. It may be the wrong approach, but that does not mean that it is aiming at the wrong target.
2) That is the answer I dislike the most. It begs the question of why the Law defines minors that way. Yes, there is a reason for all of those, but it needs to be spelled out. For instance, minors are prohibited from drinking alcohol because their livers are not fully developed to remove the toxins in the alcohol from their bodies. Or – to take a harder concept – voting is not allowed for minors because minors are judged not to have adequate exposure to society at large.
And incidentally, minors can serve NS; although few people do, our law permits males 16 1/2 years to sign on for NS.
“Leading by example” does not simply mean “monkey see, monkey do”. It means explaining the differences where there must be differences and adhering to the proper procedures for each … procedure. Explanations themselves must be done in an “opportunities” manner that emphasizes criteria to meet in order to be able to perform that procedure in the proper manner.
That is why I see age-restrictions as an essentially discriminatory tool, or rather a shortcut out of a complex problem. People after all are different from each other (omitting the special case of sexuality) and develop at different rates. So assessing one’s maturity or suitability for a particular activity based on age is somewhat flawed and simplistic.
3) I don’t really think that viewing of naked bodies is of itself more harmful than alcohol and smoking. The problem is the setting in which the naked bodies are placed in,, and the fact that most of your “naked bodies” anyway are more rather partially-clothed bodies than purely buff bodies. It is the sexualization of the naked bodies which actually riles Conservatives and is of concern to parents.
4) Incidentally, haven’t you wondered why parents are concerned about it in the first place?
As for your comment on Conservatives with no children, can’t they be concerned for their nieces or nephews or younger siblings/cousins and so on?
Sloo (#12),
1) It is the easy way out to blame parents. Blaming parents is valid in an agrarian, patriarchal society where the parents more or less have the autonomy to do what they like with their children, grandchildren and so on. But in our highly impersonalized, industrial society, parents themselves face pressure from external institutions that cut them off from access to their children: corporations, schools, NS etc. Because of the massive size of these institutions – they are sometimes called total institutions – parents do not have direct control on the policies of these institutions towards children. So those people running these institutions also have a responsibility for what they broadcast towards the children.
2) I agree with your point on the media. Being a radical (in this sense), I would propose dismantling the for-profit economic system part-by-part, and creating a new economy that has more than just the monetary bottomline. But that requires political willpower to achieve, and collective political willpower.
I would argue – as a Roman Catholic and a Human Rights advocate – that we need a paradigm shift on pornography; pornography should be regarded on the same level as sweatshops. Risque material can be eliminated if we have the political will to “handle” the escorts and the Condom Companies (e.g. Durex). Unsurprisingly, Condom Companies are sponsors of the sources of risque material; “safe sex” is merely a red herring. Unless … you can tell me what apple and banana-flavouring for condoms has to do with preventing pregnancy. It would be probably be true that if the Condom Companies were shut down, the risque magazines and materials would lose their sponsorship, and be forced to close as well. (Ever wondered what is the rationale of the Durex Sex Survey?)
How is this related to human rights? Because risque materials and activities reduce the human dignity of the people involved in them. Not to mention the numerous other illegal activities prostitution houses and escort agencies are involved in.
What we need to do is to shift the animal-rights mindset into the sex industry. After all, shouldn’t human bodies be worth as much as animal bodies, if not more?
19) Terence on November 6th, 2009 3.21 pm
“Clearly ‘Her we go again’ doesn’t understand the intent of the author or his leanings.
RW, that is why a ban becomes ’symbolic’, it doesn’t serve any useful purpose except to point out the so-called prevailing moral values of the society.”
i agree that it serves no useful purpose.
but my point will be that since the ban is symbolic, (which we both agree), why should we spend energy fighting it?
Terence a fundie? LOL.. OMG.. Please don’t anyhow shoot people. ROFL.
“The committee’s 17 members range from a primary school principal to a violinist and The Straits Times’ political editor.”
hmmm…i note the political editor’s presence with much skepticism..
@20) Arix (@UK) on November 7th, 2009 12.52 am
1.) Yes, being beautiful, as defined by slimming centres, cosmetic companies, fashion magazine is an adult thing. Children, especially girls, exposed to these messages constantly will not form a good opinion of their bodies. Why do you think there are cases of bulimic teenage girls?
2.) Yes, there are elements of arbitrary when defining the age of minors. But we have to start somewhere right? In ancient times, you are an adult if you kill your first deer, or if you got your first period, or if you got married and a host of random events that the community at large decided you are an adult. In modern society, being adult is also randomly defined. If you intend to visit a zoo, you are an “adult” if you are over 13 years old.
As such, we have to agree to yet another random age what constitute adult or minor and that age is usually 18 or 21.
The real answer, in my opinion, is it depends on the individual. Some are wise beyond their years, some who are chronologically adults displayed mentalities that are juvenile.
Ultimately, I feel it is the parents who have the responsibilities to decide if their child is mature enough to be an adult or if the child has reached universal suffrage age, whichever is earlier.
3.) At the end of the day, again it is a subjective matters. Some say David (of Michelangelo fame : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)) is work of art. The conservative will say it is porn. Who is right and who is wrong? Again, all adults should have the choice of whether to view it or not while parents have to decide if it is suitable for their children or not.
4.) Well I’m a parent so I can only answer for myself. My concern is I do not want my children to be “corrupted” by things I do not want them to see. You can say I am performing censorship on my children but it will be myself and my wife who will suffer should my children fall into the myriad of traps of human life (being bulimic, or teenage pregnancy, or being anti-social, or alcoholic, or a smoker, or a delinquent etc…etc…) I believe that is what all parents want. To have their children to grow up to be upright citizens and not problem citizens.
Lastly, to answer your question about singles with nephew or niece. Sorry, being a single with nephew or niece cannot be compared to being a parent. A lot of singles like to justify that they too experienced “parenthood” by having nephews/nieces. Any parents will laugh at such comparison. You have to personally be a parent to really understand what it is like to be responsible for a complete human being. Being an aunt/uncle will never have that experience.
By parents, I also include those who are legal guardian of a minor. So if you are single but you are the legal guardian of your nephew or niece because their parents have passed away, then yes, you are in fact, a parent. It also included single (i.e. unmarried) parents as well.
So in that effect, my stand remains conservatives who have no minor under their care have no right to demand control of information on other adults. While parents have the right to ask for tools to help them bring up the children they way they see fit.
btan (#25),
Hmm…
1) Well, if you put it that way … yes. But even so, putting it as “adult” only delays the influence somewhat, don’t you think? And Teen Magazines like Glamour and Lime are not much better either … really.
2) I personally prefer an informative advisory system to a censorship culture. We have started at censorship, and we need to move on.
I don’t agree with 13 year-old being considered an adult either. But well, age limits are something that are different in each culture. In Singapore, you need to be above 18 to be able to drive; in UK and USA you only need to be 16.
3) I am a social conservative more-or-less, and I don’t think “David” is porn. (Neither do I think that “David” represents Michelangelo’s repressed homosexuality.) It is difficult to determine who is right and who is wrong, but skirting the issue with the typical relativist declaration is just … irresponsible.
4) And my response to you is you don’t want them to be “corrupted”, but as a liberal you want to allow yourself to be “corrupted” by these same things. Double standards much?
5) Well, my point was not on that. My point was on the fact that aunts and uncles and other relations also care about their kin, so why should only parents be allowed to act on their care and concern, and not other kin? The quantitative experience is different – as you have rightly pointed out – but the qualitative experience is not that different, is it? Unless you are going to claim that aunts and uncles and grandparents do not care for nephews and nieces and grandchildren at all, which I think is a rather bold claim to make without any substantiation.
@26) Arix (@UK) on November 10th, 2009 2.39 am
I don’t want to repeat the points that I have clearly said.
The only thing I have not elaborated is with respect to why I consider those “aunties and uncles and grandparents” not “parents”.
Aunties and uncles who are single has no responsibility over a tiny human being. Parents do. They may dote on and care about their nephews and nieces but ultimately, the responsibility and the right of bringing these little tykes up belongs to their parents. Hence, their parents are the ones who has the final say what information the little ones can consume, not their doting single uncles or aunties.
As for grandparents. Well, they have had their chances. They were parents once and have brought up their little ones to adulthood and now have to leave them to their own devices. Again, the key point is they are responsible over no one.
Now you see the pattern? If you are responsible over a minor, then you have every right to ask for tools to control information access to the said minor. If you aren’t, then you don’t.
One day when my children grows up to be adult, I would have completed my job as a parent. Whether they becomes useful adults or a liability to society will be the result of the collecting efforts of my wife and I. And then we will be responsible over no one. My children will then have the right to demand tools to help them bring up THEIR children. Not us.
This is why I insist that the debate is not one of liberal versus conservative but liberal versus parents.
The other point I want to clarify is with respect to double standard. Of course there will be double standard. You will be out of your mind if you think we should treat minors the same way we treat adults.
Of course, personally, I will even treat minors of different age group different. Older children can be counseled and explained to while very young children simply do not have the reasoning skill to differentiate what is right and what is wrong. (Heaven knows how many time I tell my children not to touch an electrical outlet and how many times they think it was a game when daddy make the disapproving face and low threatening tone)
But if the same children grows up to be an adult, as defined by society (for me 18 is sufficient but 21 is really when I will “wash hand” off my children), then that’s it. I will feel I can teach them no more with respect to what is right or what is wrong and they have to come to that conclusion based on all the teachings I have given to them for their entire life.
The problem, I think, of conservative is they think some adult are still children and thus treats them as such. And the problem of some liberals is to treat some children as adults.
Both kinds of thinking to me, are wrong.